"P.J. Eby" <[email protected]> writes: > However, AFAIK, nobody qualified for the job of setuptools maintainer > actually *wants* the position, myself included. (This is not to say > that such qualified persons do not exist, I'm just saying that I don't > know of them at the moment.)
Since there are people who have demonstrated significant desire to continue development of setuptools — heck, they're organising a fork of it solely because they want its development to proceed — the “wants to” criterion is evidently satisfied. So I can only interpret the above as saying that those who have demonstrated that they want to, are not qualified. Is that what you're saying? If not, what *are* you saying? > But lack of qualified volunteers is not me "preventing" anyone doing > anything. You are preventing people from continuing development of setuptools *as setuptools*. That's the main complaint I'm seeing in this discussion, and your explanation in this latest message reinforces that. You may have good justification for preventing people from doing that, but I wish you'd acknowledge that this *is* preventing people from doing something they've expressed a clear desire to do. > Obviously, I am not "preventing" anyone from forking it. Forking is the option of last resort. It's good that we *have* that option — heck, it's one of the main reasons to prefer free software — but it's far less preferable than continuance of the project under the same banner. -- \ “It's up to the masses to distribute [music] however they want | `\ … The laws don't matter at that point. People sharing music in | _o__) their bedrooms is the new radio.” —Neil Young, 2008-05-06 | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
